passionately atheist

[Asmodean]

Seeing as religion is generally not discussed in the court of science, whatever that is, I don't get your point.

Here, "court of science" refers to scientific acknowledgement of a valid theory or a valid fact. The very basis of religion is neither. It is, at best, a weak hypothesis. No matter how much you discuss it, it remains exactly that. So why bother discussing it then? Bring home some evidence, then we'll talk.

[Voter]

First of all, it's made evident by this statement that you have never met an atheist in real life. For that, I am very sorry. I remember what it was like, and I could never had stepped out of my comfort zone if someone hadn't challenged my assumptions about god. I will always be thankful for that, and I hope one day that you can experience it as well. I would say that I could try to be that person for you, but you obviously don't take "people on the internet" very seriously, which isn't really fair, considering that we're all real people who just happen to be communicating in this means.

Yes, I've met a real live atheist. I had a poli sci profesoor who was a liberal atheist. We used to go to a bar after class.

But there's something else in this statement that bothers me. My parents are very special to me. I didn't say they weren't. But why should their opinions be special? Their concern for my well being is not related in any way to the validity of their opinions about life. I don't really see how you can refute that.

One factor to consider in evaluating conflicting views is the motivation of the people giving those views. It's not the only factor, but it's certainly relevant.

It's not about weighing opinions of different people. Don't you see that? It's about evidence. It's about reason.

No, I don't see that from your letter, which goes further into your personal story than into evidence.

But if you examine why your parents taught you a particular religion, you realize the reason is simply this: their parents taught them. And that, my friend, is not enough. So you have to look for your own reasons.

I teach my children my religion because I've spent a lot of time contemplating life and have concluded my religion is true, and offers both temporal and eternal benefits.

Alright, when you say something like this, it makes me think that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I am upset (not even close to chastising) because my father chastises my brother. I am not upset because of his viewpoint. I made this perfectly clear.

You seem upset with his viewpoint that he has the right to push his beliefs onto his children.

Not really. It's hard to dispute the word, "lots" because it's very vague. but if you said "most", you'd be dead wrong. Most people follow the religion of their parents; this is a fact, unlike your ambiguous, anecdotal statement.

Who's more likely to see your letter - people who are more religious than their parents, or people who are just following what their parents did? The latter may be greater in number, but they generally don't go to religion or atheism forums.

I haven't a clue as to what you're trying to say here. What does that have to do with what you quoted?

The fact that you changed your view indicates that it was not "virtually impossible" to do so.

They are shortcomings indeed, and I am very ashamed of them. But your are completely wrong to say they are unique to me.

I didn't say that. These things are common in my experience.

You would list Hell as a good reason to accept Jesus, would you not? (That's not a rhetorical question, so answer it.)

Sure.

You would associate the beauty of the world with the God of the Bible, would you not? These are all things that Christians do. How exactly are you telling me that they're shortcomings?

It's a shortcoming that you did so automatically, without reason. Now, not all are called to have reason along with faith, and obviously reason cannot be complete, else there is no faith. But in your case, you apparently needed to search out reasons for your faith.

Are you saying that you you've never felt God's presence? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm really not, but you have to admit you're contradicting yourself. I never said that churches rely on emotion. I said I was affected by emotion! Are you not affected by emotion? Are you saying that has nothing to do with your belief? I'm honestly confused.

I read that paragraph as an argument that churches rely on emotion to get and keep people. If that's not what you meant, I missed your point.

You are obviously just trying to hit a nerve here, and i find it uncivil, not to mention very un-Christlike!

If you never saw Christ hit a nerve, you didn't read your Bible nearly enough.

I am suggesting that there is no rational evidence(because I have looked my whole life)and if you'd like to refute that, by all means, you have my full attention.

For existence of a god in general, creation and design are evidence. For the Christian God, the Bible is evidence. Note that something doesn't need to be irrefutable in order to be evidence. People can reasonably disagree in their conclusions from the evidence.

[Voter]

Seeing as religion is generally not discussed in the court of science, whatever that is, I don't get your point.

Here, "court of science" refers to scientific acknowledgement of a valid theory or a valid fact. The very basis of religion is neither. It is, at best, a weak hypothesis. No matter how much you discuss it, it remains exactly that. So why bother discussing it then? Bring home some evidence, then we'll talk.

Most people discuss lots of things that have nothing to do with science.

[Voter]

It could, but dodge said 'chastise', not criticize. Obviously it's more than mere criticism or she would have used that word. She has described the home environment as 'totalitarian'. I have a feeling chastisement does not stop at criticism.

Again, severe criticism is a dictionary definition of chastisement.

It makes you sound mean and low to talk so bluntly of a failure, whatever it's nature. If your version of God does exist don't you think it's His job to judge failure? You can't throw failure into anybody's face lightly.

OK, I'm throwing it seriously in his face. Maintaining faith for life is a primary goal of Christianity. He did not maintain that faith. Therefore he failed as a Christian. He should probably mature as an atheist before attempting to write general letters supporting it.

I see. Like you have more support for your faith than any of us former Christians did? Bull. Your faith just requires less.

Can't argue with your omniscience.

Are you a seven day adventist by any chance? You smell like one.

No.

Reason may be greatly emphasized over emotion, but emotion is still an extremely important component of faith accross the board. Themes like sacrifice, love, hope, are all important to all denominations of Christianity, and they are all very emotionally stimulating. All church leaders worth their salt know how to tweak your emotional brain.

I think most atheists also accept themes like sacrifice, love and hope, and a secular leader worth his salt knows how to use these themes for emotional effect. Such themes are an important component of humanity across the board.

That's because it's all second-hand evidence. The evidence for the existence of Christ is much worse than evidence second-hand, because it's removed by a couple thousand years. At least courtroom testimony is fresh. It's interesting you compare evidence for Christianity and courtroom evidence, considering lawers are expert in knowing how to emotionally manipulate the jury. The clergy does the same thing.

OK, we agree that the Bible is evidence.

Sure they can, but the claims themselves are not rational in any way shape or form.

Extraordinary claims (God spoke to me) require extraordinary evidence (miracles).

By rational people do you mean people who jump in the name of Jesus anytime a republican cries war? You're comparing the death rate for an entire nation to the death rate of one military campaign. That's a priest-craft perspective for you. Besides, there have obviously been far more deaths than 4,000. That's just American soldiers. What a senseless loss for all.

Yes, I'm making that comparison, and the number of deaths in the military campaign is insignificant compared to the number caused by our healthcare system. Far more good would be done if the evening news focused on deaths by medicine than deaths in Iraq. War deaths apparently have a greater emotional impact on you than iatrogenic deaths.

[Asmodean]

Most people discuss lots of things that have nothing to do with science.

Ah, but that's not the point, now is it?

I can discuss something as a scientist or as a guy next door. As the scientist, I would have to demand proof to substantiate a theory or a fact. As the guy next door, I can spin all kinds of wild tales with no regard to proof.

Sure, we can discuss religion on many levels. But when it comes to its foundation (the existence of gods), there really is nothing to discuss until some form of good evidence is presented. Thus, such a conversation usually takes the following form:

someone: There is a God!

me: Prove it.

someone:I have seen it/felt its presense (Or they just say: "Prove that there isn't")

me: Laugh

[Voter]

Most people discuss lots of things that have nothing to do with science.

Ah, but that's not the point, now is it?

Yes, it is. Your premise seems to be that if something can't be discussed on a scientific level, it's not worth discussing. The fact that most conversations take place on other than a scientific level shows that most people disagree with you. This discussion on discussions is an example. You haven't presented scientific evidence to support your case.

I can discuss something as a scientist or as a guy next door. As the scientist, I would have to demand proof to substantiate a theory or a fact. As the guy next door, I can spin all kinds of wild tales with no regard to proof.

Do you have scientific evidence that the typical next door neighbor will accept all kinds of wild tales as true without regard to proof? If not, this is one of those tales, and the neighbors aren't buying it.

Sure, we can discuss religion on many levels. But when it comes to its foundation (the existence of gods), there really is nothing to discuss until some form of good evidence is presented.

Why should I accept your unilateral declaration that only scientific evidence is "good" evidence? Looks like another wild tale.

[rlrose328]

Why should I accept your unilateral declaration that only scientific evidence is "good" evidence? Looks like another wild tale.

For me, in the scope of the bigger picture, you must provide scientific proof if you are making a declaration upon which you want to pass laws.  I can easily say that Mithras is dismayed when people have too many kids and will send to a hellish death anyone who has more than 2 kids.  Because I want to protect the immortal souls of everyone on earth, I say we should pass a global law banning people from having more than 2 kids.  Even though your having 3 kids does no harm to me whatsoever, I want that law passed because Mithras can't be wrong.  He's a god, it's in a book, that's proof enough, right?  Wouldn't you want scientific proof that this god exists and that he did say that before making that kind of unilateral law?

That premise sounds as ludicrous to me as banning gay marriage.  I want scientific proof that your god exists because there is no reason to ban gay marriage other than one based on the Christian bible wherein it states that god doesn't care for homosexuality (or homosexual sex, however you view it).

[curiosityandthecat]

Claim: There is/is not a God.
Style: Quantitative/Binary
Question: What is the state of something?
Realm: Science, as it is a provable or disprovable fact.

Claim: God loves us/God created us in its image/etc.
Style: Qualitative/Descriptive
Question: What is the driving force behind an action?
Realm: Philosophy or other non-scientific area as it argues motivation or another unprovable (assumptive) situation.

The realm of science has provided us with innumerable advances for the well-being of humanity. The realm of philosophy (or theology, for that matter) has provided us with advances in how to think about being human, but doesn't provide an ounce of food.

Which is more important?

[Asmodean]

Yes, it is. Your premise seems to be that if something can't be discussed on a scientific level, it's not worth discussing.

Never said that.

The fact that most conversations take place on other than a scientific level shows that most people disagree with you. This discussion on discussions is an example. You haven't presented scientific evidence to support your case.

That's because it's not my cause we are discussing here

Do you have scientific evidence that the typical next door neighbor will accept all kinds of wild tales as true without regard to proof? If not, this is one of those tales, and the neighbors aren't buying it.

Where did I say or imply ANYTHING about truth? Please give me the exact quote.

...No? Now stop reading between my lines. There is NOTHING there when I'm talking to religious types.

Why should I accept your unilateral declaration that only scientific evidence is "good" evidence? Looks like another wild tale.

Only scientific evidence is any good for science. It also, slowly but surely, comes to dominate the court of law. Why? Because of its quality. Why should YOU accept it? Because of it's quality. But you probably never will so this is pointless. Besides that, read rlrose328's post above.

[Voter]

Voter wrote:
Yes, it is. Your premise seems to be that if something can't be discussed on a scientific level, it's not worth discussing.

Never said that.

So what did you mean by:

"Here, "court of science" refers to scientific acknowledgement of a valid theory or a valid fact. The very basis of religion is neither. It is, at best, a weak hypothesis. No matter how much you discuss it, it remains exactly that. So why bother discussing it then? Bring home some evidence, then we'll talk."

[Asmodean]

"Here, "court of science" refers to scientific acknowledgement of a valid theory or a valid fact. The very basis of religion is neither. It is, at best, a weak hypothesis. No matter how much you discuss it, it remains exactly that. So why bother discussing it then? Bring home some evidence, then we'll talk."

You religious types DO excel at putting things between the lines that were never there...  

I was talking about the "court of science", which I defined for you. There is no scientific basis for a scientific discussion regarding the existence of gods and thus it's not worth discussing in scientific circles.

Oh, and in the future, before complaining, read my entire reply to a particular point, will you? Even the last sentence

[Voter]

There is no scientific basis for a scientific discussion regarding the existence of gods and thus it's not worth discussing in scientific circles.

Uh, OK. Not sure why you'd bring that up in a discussion about an open letter to theists, and frankly this sounds like you just can't admit you're wrong, but whatever.

[Asmodean]

Uh, OK. Not sure why you'd bring that up in a discussion about an open letter to theists,

There is no rational evidence for Christianity. If there was we would all be Christians.

Incorrect. Evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Testimony in a courtroom is evidence, but all the jurors don't necessarily agree with it.

In response to your reply here.

and frankly this sounds like you just can't admit you're wrong, but whatever.

I'm not that thick-headed. When it's clear that I'm wrong, I admit it. Now where exactly did I make an error in out little conversation?

[Voter]

In your own words - why bother discussing it?

[dodgecity]

Well, Voter, thanks for clearing those things up. I have to remind myself that the purpose of this thread is not to prove you wrong, it's to improve upon my earnest letter by seeing how a Christian responds to it.

So let's have a look at how Voter responded:

#1 - He argues that your parents are more likely to be correct simply because they're your parents. [spoiler:11dashr4]

That they've presumably demonstrated a greater concern for your well-being than anyone you might meet on the street makes them special. I'd give their opinions greater weight than those of people on the internet who've never done anything tangible for me.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#2 - He attacks me for wanting to have my own opinions and wanting my brother to have his own as well. [spoiler:11dashr4]

Your father chastises your brother for having an opposing viewpoint. You're chastising your father for having an opposing viewpoint.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#3 - He feels the need to prove that the Iraq war is justified. (which is not the point of the letter at all, just an example of an opinion my brother is not allowed to have) [spoiler:11dashr4]

Can't say based on the little you've provided. Maybe your father would have done better to point out that we spend billions on health care, and that kills 200,000 a year - for more than Iraq.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#4 - He claims that he is more religious than his parents.(which is one of the snootiest and judgmental things a christian could ever say) In other words, each christian that reads this letter is going to try his best to prove that the themes do not apply to him.[spoiler:11dashr4]

I'm more religious than my parents. Lots of people are.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#5 - He claims that I am just not as good of a Christian as he is, and that is the source of the problem. [spoiler:11dashr4]

You're projecting your own shortcomings and failure as a Christian onto all Christians.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#6 - He claims that he is not religiously influenced by his emotions (and therefore the letter does not apply to him)
[spoiler:11dashr4]

Same as above. Some churches rely on emotion, but not all do.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#7 - He plays the insult card so he doesn't have to take me seriously, and then claims that Jesus would do the same. [spoiler:11dashr4]

You are your father's son. By proclaiming that there is no rational evidence to be Christian, you shut down the possibility for rational discussion.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]


I will try to revise the letter so that these defense mechanisms will be more difficult to resort to.